Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Honestly, given the companies past alleged illegal/unethical behavior, the first thing that came to my mind was.... "what is coming down the pipe that they are trying to avoid?" Specifically, by moving the corporate HQ out of the country, are they avoiding some potential legal action because of illegal or unethical corporate behavior? After all we do know about lots of no-bid contracts they were awarded, not to mention the overcharging of contracts and more. It should also be noted that Haliburton is trying to off-load KBR. But fundamentally, regardless of ones political bias, even if there is no forthcoming news of illegal activity, because this corporation has benefitted so much from contracts awarded by the US government, moving off shore to avoid paying US taxes is simply an additional insult.

P.S. Remember when Cheney refused to sell his Haliburton stock when appointed VP? He also resisted placing it into a blind trust and if I remember correctly, continues to receive compensation from Haliburton. Also, the content of Cheney's energy task force demonstrated that companies (Haliburton included) had direct input into the official federal energy plan, effectively allowing corporations to dictate US policy.

I wish the reporting would be more accurate. They stated VERY clearly that they are remaining incorporated in the US and will still be paying US taxes and be subject to US law.

Ninety percent of their business is in the Middle East and Asia. The move just makes business sense. The only ill effect will be a few hundred jobs in Houston lost; not a good thing for those people but all part of business.

Try plane flights from Houston to Hong Kong, Dubai, Beijing, etc. The CEO wants to be closer to the action so he's moving the HQ. I'm sure the decision was a bit more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.

For instance, if there has to be an urgent phone call between a CEO of an oil services company, and the head of a sovereign nation that retains both de facto and de jure control over resources that are increasingly difficult to find across the world, and somebody is going to be inconvenienced by the time -- I don't think it's going to be the emir who's getting woken up at 3AM to talk business unless it's really, really an emergency.

And it should be swiftly followed by a cancellation of major US contracts. I consider supporting US jobs as a major condition for gaining lucrative US contracts. The CEO having a shorter plane ride is of no concern to me, but the loss of tens of millions of dollars to a city economy is, and I don't even live in Texas.

The US tax base paid for the bombs that blew the hell out of the middle east, now they're paying billions of dollars to a big company to fix the middle east, and people are complaining that the taxes on the profits being made by the big company are going to the middle east instead of remaining in the US.

I'm going to be the last one to defend Haliburton, but exactly where do "American wages for American employees" fit in here? If 90% of their business is in the Middle East, doesn't it make sense to hire local employees?

On a larger scale, what's with the idea that a company owes Americans jobs just because they're American? What happened to land of the free and all that jazz?

The fucking populists are overrunning this country, and I don't like it one bit...

Companies benefit from operating in America. Countries are free to set whatever conditions they want to on corporations. Although currently, getting a corporate charter is merely a matter of filling out the right paperwork, when corporations were invented, the charter was granted conditionally, for a particular type of commerce, in a particular area and could be revoked for any reason. You should really look at the history of corporations, why they were invented and why everyone was worried about them from

They should be forced to pay for Americans if they want to avail themselves of the services provided by this country, and the term "pay for Americans" has a lot of different aspects to it, not all of which have to do with direct employment by such organizations.

Halliburton has a lot inc common with many other major U.S. corporations, who also see nothing wrong with pissing all over their domestic workforce. All that, while simultaneously demanding more and more for less and less from said workforce, dema

There was a time when US companies and corporate leaders felt that it was worthwhile to care about the communities in which they exist. For some reason, there was a shift (was it in the 80s or before that?) that simply deleted that perception from the list of business interests and practices. It's a damned shame, but how can we bring it back?

Simple, by putting your money where your mouth is. Support your local businesses. Support businesses which treat their employees well. Try to buy American made whenever you can. I dunno if I'll get in trouble for a plug but I have heard a lot of good things and read many articles about Costco being responsible corporation by offering its employees fair wages, benefits, etc. I try to shop there whenever I can and avoid Wal Mart whenever possible.

That isn't very democratic is it? People with more money than me wield more influence, hence an oligarchy. Capitalism isn't a democratic process, but we have to rely on government laws to protect consumers. This is where libertarians get it all wrong. An absolutely unfettered market is rife with abuse.
Government should have limited enumerated powers to pass laws that effect the citizenry but open ended ability to regulate corporations in order to protect the citizens first. This is the exact opposite

Costco is the best company I have ever worked for, and I've worked for what I believe is some very inspiring management elsewhere. My warehouse had 220 employees and I wouldn't doubt 95% of them loved their job with a passion.

Someone knows where you can get an awesome burger for lunch that didn't come prepackaged and microwaved. There's an awesome family-run place around the corner from my office. $5 gets you a great bacon cheeseburger, in and out in 30 minutes. Drive a little farther and there's a burger dive, complete with deep-fried whatever-the-hell-you-want: $8 gets you burger, onion rings and either jalapeno poppers or a real milkshake. For office meetings, an Italian restaurant serves up pizza.

I rather doubt we can, in our lifetimes anyway. Countries that are just now entering the level of prosperity that we enjoyed in the second half of the 20th century are quite willing to give tax breaks, look the other way on pollution controls, and in general "care about" companies that open up in otherwise impoverished parts of their countries. Here on the other hand, we have developed a cultural bias against all large companies, while at the same time not doing much to favor small companies either.

If you are a Boeing, you may make the best airplanes, but you have a heavily government subsidized Airbus to go up against. In this particular case of course, Airbus, having nothing to lose but European tax payers money went way out on a limb with some bad technology and now Boeing is seeing the benefit. But several years ago Boeing outlook wasn't so certain, and several years from now (if Airbus gets their act together) that might be the case again. Very rarely though does our government step in to prop up a company that might be in trouble (Chrysler being a counter example), instead letting the chips fall where they may (as with Enron, Worldcom, etc.)

On the other hand, if a company is healthy, there is a public outcry to keep them out of town (Walmart), tax them more, or confiscate their revenues for some worthy cause (as Hillary wants to to do to the other US oil companies). It seems to be often forgotten that these "big greedy companies" are where many of our retirement programs are invested. Yes, Enron was evil (at the top), yes they did bad things, and yes a lot of individuals were hurt when their stock value went to zero. But was the average Enron employee a part of this? Would forcing them all to archive their e-mail for a billion years have prevented it? Doubtful.

Do small companies get treated better? Maybe some do, but the ones I know are being run on a shoestring and nobody working there is getting rich. A dozen man construction company for example is subject to endless regulations, and because they handle millions of dollars in materials, even though the employees may be making a low hourly wage, they are not treated like a "small business". Doctors and Dentists in America used to be thought of as small businesses too, and that's the way they operated. But our legal system has changed all that. Now even the smallest country doctor needs a staff to keep track of paperwork, billing though various government agencies, and of course responding to litigation issues.

Our media has focused on the fact that many large companies are being run by executives that are millionaires, and who continue to make millions every year, often after poor performance. But this isn't true of the vast majority of businesses and we've lost sight of the fact that the REAL value of the company (almost any company) is is the hundreds (or thousands) of employees making a living wage, as well as stockholders (pensioners) just like you and me. Socialist countries (I include most of Europe) have awakened to the need to keep these companies happy, just as we (Americans) have started to find every reason imaginable to make such companies feel unwelcome.

I don't think for a minute that most big companies "care" about their employees, other than on a competitive level, where they have to offer just enough incentives to keep them from jumping ship. But the average American voter certainly doesn't care for corporate America either, and as you can see here from the other comments, we'll also blame them for not sticking around to take another beating. Do you think the average government worker in Washington "cares" about the average American citizen either? Yet we give them more and more authority over us to protect us from those institutions that are free to go somewhere else if the going gets too tough here.

To bring things back we have to once again realize that with the exception of a few e

There was a time when US companies and corporate leaders felt that it was worthwhile to care about the communities in which they exist.

Er, um. No. There was simply a time when (with the US being the prime destination for goods as well as a prime source of raw gods), it didn't make much sense to do things like move out of the country.

Back then you had companies dumping hazardous chemicals into aquifers, and exploiting workers as well as the Union contracts (or lack of a union), and labour market allowed. I talked to one lady who worked in an office environment in the early '70s.... When an important executive came into town, they'd pick a random receptionist to 'take care of his needs'. It was a case of 'put up or get out' and, for a young woman with few other prospects and the likelihood of a bad reference if she said 'no', there were some very hard choices to be made.

It's long been case that your average large conglomerate was focused on making a profit -- by hook or croock. The difference was that -- roughly from the 60s to the 80s the electorate had a reasonable control of the government, which responded by setting laws and regulations which generally worked for the average citizen. Nowadays, big business has gotten their claws (back) into the heart of government.

Instead of setting the rules and laws such that a corporation hellbent on making money would act in a way that (generally) worked for the populace, now the laws are increasingly being set so that a corporation hellbent on making a profit will be able to set the rules so that they work for the greater profit rather than the greater good.

When companies were owned by individuals, not stockholders.Look at Ford as an example. Got sued (and lost) by stockholders for paying his workers too much. He then bought out all the stockholders and could pay his workers well with the idea that they would then have enough money to buy a Ford as well as having a decent life.Also it is still like that with small non publicly owned companies.

Ford introduced the world's first moving assembly line that year, which reduced chassis assembly time from 12½ hours in October to 2 hours, 40 minutes. However, these innovations were hard on employees, and turnover of workers was very high. Turnover meant delays and extra costs of training, and use of slow workers. In January 1914, Ford solved the employee turnover problem by doubling pay to $5 a day ($103 per day in 2006 dollars), cutting shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day for a 5 day work week, and instituting hiring practices that identified the best workers. Thus, it pioneered the minimum wage and the 40 hour work week in the United States, before the government enacted it. Thus, Henry Ford became an American legend.

Productivity soared and employee turnover plunged, and the cost per vehicle plummeted. Ford cut prices again and again and invented the system of franchised dealers who were loyal to his brand name. Wall Street had disagreed with Ford's generous labor practices when he began paying workers enough to buy the products they made.

Seems like a smart move to me and if they had kept similar attitudes the unions would not have moved in which seems to be a problem now.

I don't have a problem with technology replacing some jobs. What I do have a problem with is one country exporting jobs to another because the home country believes that some rights (organizing, living wage, etc) are inherent while the other country does not.

That's actually not the lion's share of their business. They are an Oil Services company, and one of only two or three in the world that can do what they do. Even with regards to their Government contracts, the vast bulk of that work is in the Middle East.

People are starting to just grasp at straws now, either out of hate for Haliburton or a dislike of corporations in general.

Besides, the UAE doesn't enforce Sharia law, so that means there are hotties running around with very little clothing on!

Care to back that one up? Bahrain potentially has that situation, as might Saudi Arabia. However, the prince who runs UAE is exceedingly cautious of the way his country is viewed by the outside world, and I don't think your statement is accurate.

The UAE labor law does not cover domestic workers. Many are physically and sexually abused. Stories abound of housemaids who try to escape their employers' homes knowing neither the address nor the phone number, nor even the family's full name. Some end up in hospitals, victims of rape. Rarely is an employer prosecuted. Authorities are threatening to shut down Dubai's only shelter for women and children survivors of violence, including women domestic workers who have suffered abuse by their employers. The best that an abused domestic worker can hope for is an airline ticket back home and a lifetime of shame.

Which also had this quote which reminded me of our own H1B indentured servants

A Qatari citizen--the sponsor--procures a visa for a worker and thereby controls that worker's movements for the duration of his or her contract while in Qatar.

Just because we're not in the middle east, dosen't mean we don't like to enslave indiana tech workers. Check out the H1B.. it's bloody evil.

Technology has brought instant money transfers without borders. This has brought many possibilities to crooks for moving, hiding, stealing money through swift with the complicity of the banks or the very big companies.And the laws have lagged behind: most Laws will not apply or not quickly enough to prevent this kind of thievery, a judge will take years to trace funds from one place to another (it will have left then) and there are much holes and fiscal paradises that are exploited to loot in a legal way.

When we read histories of wars we often read about the actions and affiliations of governments and armies. Very rarely do we read histories of wars which contain detailed breakdowns of the actions and affiliations of business and banks during the same period.

Create [slashdot.org] debt, maintain [slashdot.org] debt, keep people in debt, work those people until they die of debt.

99% of everything else, from suicide bombers to international embargoes, is just PR (running interference, Kansas City Shuffle, sh*tter tennies) to keep the citizens from realizing how deep into debt their political representatives are selling them.

You are completely and totally wrong. As a person who was brought up in a suburb of Dubai (I'm not a UAE citizen) I can tell you that Iran and the UAE do NOT get along. Iran tolerates the UAE, and the UAE fears Iran. Simple as that. Do a google on the island of "Abu Musa" (or Abu moosa) and you'll see why. The UAE is very pro US, and Iran as we all no, isn't. The UAE is THE most liberal and open of the Arab societies (with the possible exception of Jordan).. Iran is one of THE most conservative and religiously fanatical countries of the region. Iran is Shiite. The UAE is mostly Sunni (a significant chunk of which is Wahabi). The LAST thing dubai wants is a nuclear Iran.

It is illegal for Halliburton to deal directly with Iran from the United States. While the UAE may find Iran odious, I'm not aware of a similar restriction. Is there anything in the UAE that would prevent Halliburton from dealing with Iran directly?

Cheney has NOT been paid by Halliburton since he began running for VP almost 8 yrs ago.

That's not true.

Vice President and Mrs. Cheney filed their federal income tax return for 2004 today. The income tax return shows that the Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2004 of $393,518 on taxable income of $1,328,678. During the course of 2004 the Cheneys paid $290,855 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. The Cheneys paid $102,663 upon filing their tax return.

The wage and salary income reported on the tax return includes the Vice President's $203,000 government salary. In addition, the tax return reports the payment of deferred compensation from Halliburton Company in the amount of $194,852. In December 1998, the Vice President elected to defer compensation earned in calendar year 1999 for his services as chief executive officer of Halliburton. This amount was required be paid in fixed annual installments (with interest) in the five years after the Vice President's retirement from Halliburton.

Deferred compensation that was paid AFTER he left, the article makes it seem like he was paid as CEO and as VP AT THE SAME TIME. He earned that money in years before 1999 due to performance incentives in his contract and it was due him by his contract that he was given when he was hired. Halliburton had to pay him whether he was VP or was off playing Golf. If they hadn't paid he could have sued. If YOU had met certain incentives wouldn't you want your money? If your options were in the money wouldn't you exercise them? Get the fuck off this, he earned the compensation, options and the money due him just like anyone else. No one gripes that Bill Clinton makes millions "consulting" and has a wife that is a Senior Senator from NY. Talk about influence!

"[Dick Cheney] earned that money in years before 1999 due to performance incentives in his contract..."

I completely agree. And I wish someone would mod you up, because your post brings us much closer to the truth.

Dick Cheney got the job as CEO of Halliburton (his first job in the private sector) as a result of being Secretary of Defense. Before Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, Halliburton was nothing -- his decisions as Defense Secretary made Halliburton wealthy. So if Cheney is getting paid now, it's because of the wealth he created Halliburton during his reign as Secretary of Defense -- not as CEO. As CEO, he implemented a very aggressive take over strategy of asbestos companies (after the scandal had already broken out) which basically got Halliburton to pick up many bargains -- but eventually led it to declare bankruptcy (i.e. Corporate Welfare).

Now Hilary Clinton may be as corrupt as Cheney, may be, but compared to Dick Cheney -- Hillary Clinton is a freaking genius where it comes to business. Hell, even George W. Bush's failed business record is not as bad as Cheney's.

Halliburton was founded in 1919.
By 1982, it had 115,000 employees [wikipedia.org]. A company with over 100,000 people is very much "something", not "nothing".
Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1989.
So you, stephanruby, are either a frickin liar or just plain ignorant.

You're right. I'm a complete dumb ass. I tried, but couldn't substantiate the details of what I asserted.

The Halliburton stock did almost hit rock bottom, but that was when Cheney was the Minority Whip -- a couple of years before he became Secretar

Does a crime have to have been committed for a criminal investigation tobe carried out? If so, then the tail is chasing the dog, and nothingever gets started. So, there was an investigation. The jury believesthat Scooter obstructed that investigation by not being honest ( kindalike Clinton was dishonest, perhaps ).

And tell me truely, if a Democratic administration had disclosed theidentity of a spouse of a critic of that administration that had helda similiar position, that the Repu

I see Clinton being grilled before a grand jury because a case was brought AGAINST HIM on sexual harrasment (ok, it was White Water which subsequently led to sexual harrasment), and then he clearly committed perjury in an attempt to avoid being found guilty, and basically got a slap on the wrist, despite the fact that republicans are in charge of the legislative branch.

I see Sandy Berger commmitting what is ostensibly treason and getting a slap on the wrist because he's "just sloppy," despite the fact that the republicans are in charge of both the executive and legislative branches.

I see Scooter Libby being questioned in a case where he hasn't been accused of a crime, has no reason to cover anything up since he hasn't been charged with anything and knows he isn't guilty, and giving a couple of wrong dates or times because he couldn't remember, all questions asked during a case that never had any merit (and this was known by the prosecuter on day one), and this is the guy that gets jail time, despite the fact that the investigation happened with a republican legislative and executive brance, and the verdict being reached with a republican in the white house.

Was he guilty? Yes! He should have just said "I don't remember" and given the best answer he could within what he could remember.

BUT, are you seriously going to tell me this guy deserves jail time when the others didn't?

Wrong. No crime was prosecuted because the prosecutor knew on the first day of the investigation that the "leaker" was Armitage - a man who was against the war and had no motive to intentionally discredit Wilson. But instead of closing the investigation once he discovered who the "leaker" was (which is what he was chartered to do), he continued for 2 years to "investigate" a crime that he knew wasn't committed just so he could prosecute an innocent man for not recalling the exact time and content of conve

Libby lied. Oh, but he has such a feeble mine that he can't remember or articulate even the most basic things. When it's convenient for him, he's just the biggest bumbler in history. Some people lapped it all up, and are probably holding teary candlelight vigils for the bastard. That's irrelevant. The fact is that the jury, when presented with the facts, didn't buy it.

Lied about what? Libby was NOT the leaker, and Fitzgerald knew that when he interviewed him 3 different times. I'd challenge you to remember, under oath, the exact date and content of a handful of conversations you had several years ago. Apparently if you get some dates mixed up, it's only criminal if you are a Republican.

And remember, the Jury wasn't presented with all of the facts. They were not presented with the covert status of Ms. Plame. They were not presented the identity of who actually "leaked" her role at the CIA. They were not presented with the lies her husband told to the press, and they were not presented the motivations behind the actual leaker. Nope -- they were presented with a handful of conflicting testimonies from different reporters who all agreed that Libby didn't leak any covert agents name, but disagreed about what day they actually talked to Libby on.

I'd like to see Rove and Cheney go down for this too

Of course you would. That was the clear goal from the moment this farce of an investigation was started.

the evidence implicates them pretty heavily

Implicates them with what? The leak did NOT come from the White House! It came from the State Department, from a person who disagreed with the war. The only thing the White House can be implicated on is doing a piss poor job of discrediting a critic that was spreading open lies about them that the NY Times was lapping up.

Just admit it: you've invested so much personal effort into defending Bush from any and all criticism that you're just going to take the pro-Bush stance on everything without a serious appraisal of the facts.

I'd recommend that you re-evaluate your "serious appraisal of the facts" to include, well, facts. Yours is a laughable argument considering the majority of the rabid left Bush-haters "facts" include cheering a spirited op-ed and placing a sticker on their car with a lined-out "W" on it. Wow, that sure does wonders for factual political discord, doesn't it?

...a critic that was spreading open lies about them that the NY Times was lapping up.

Oh pray tell, what did Wilson lie about? That he should have known that his wife had recommended him for the job, I'll give you that one -- but that's about it (and good luck proving it by the way). Joseph Wilson is not the anti-war liberal hack know-nothing that the republicans are trying to make him out to be. And the extreme-right bloggers that make him out to be a former Clinton aid who was against the war are just a

I'd challenge you to remember, under oath, the exact date and content of a handful of conversations you had several years ago. Apparently if you get some dates mixed up, it's only criminal if you are a Republican.

The dates were not the only things that got mixed-up. Apparently, he also had trouble telling the difference between Dick Cheney and his reporter friend. May be the next time around, he should just ask Dick Cheney and his friend to wear name tags or something.

Libby DID in fact lie. Armitage MAY have been the original leaker, but Libby was still involved in calling people in the media and dropping Valorie's identity (who cares if he didn't use her name but just Joe Wilson's wife?). The whole point of this investigation is that he lied to protect Cheney. They had hoped the charges would make him squeal, but he's being a Good German probably in exchange for a pardon.
Very frightening how easily and quickly Conservatives have been convinced that this case was bo

This will be another installment of "Who the hell modded up this crap?" How am I supposed to not feed trolls if they are modded up so high? There are impressionable minds out there that could be permanently damaged by hearing enough people claim this subjective crap amounts to a decent argument. Won't some mods think of the children?So where were we....

Your argument is specious and consists of meaningless statements that have no bearing on the issue. In other words, your claims lack integrity.

1) He lied when he claimed he was sent to Africa under the direction of VP Cheney's office. That's the whole reason reporters started digging into this in the first place because it didn't make sense that Cheney would send a war critic to verify WMD claims. It turned out that it was his wife, not Cheney, who sent him.

2) He lied when he claimed that his trip did not find any facts to support the claim that Iraq had sought Uranium from Africa. In fact, it was his testimony [factcheck.org] to the CIA that confirmed Iraq had sent an delegation to Niger for the purpose of "uranium yellowcake sales". The Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

3) He lied when he claimed that the identity of his wife was revealed by the White House in an effort to rebuke him for disagreeing with their war stance. We know for a fact that the identity of his wife was accidentally revealed by Richard Armitage, a State Department war critic who didn't have any motive to criminally disclose the identity of Wilson's wife.

4) He lied about his wife's covert status. We know now from Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald that Ms. Plame had a desk job at the agency and had not been "covert" for years, and that the CIA did not deny her identity to reporters who called to confirm.

You are clearly confused. Gonzales wasn't with the Justice Department at that time - he was part of the White House general council. And the only reason Fitzgerald was appointed was because Chuck Schumer whined about it. This was 100% about politics, not justice.

Read the Constitution. It's Congress' job to make sure that the executive branch is following the law. Small 'j' justice is inherently political, especially wrt Congressional oversight of the Executive. We elect people through a political process to

I'm an accountant. You don't understand deferred compensation. 401(k) plans are almost useless to executives because they max out their contribution limits quickly. Additionally, a corporation may only expense, for tax deductions, salary below $1 million for the 5 highest paid employees (unless it is tied to performance.) Usually, executives are allowed to forego current salary and essentially reinvest it in the company. The executives picks a fund, and the company more or less guarantees to pay the exexcutive the same amount who would have received had he invested the funds in his chosen investment. Normally, these payments are received after the employee retires from working at the company. After retirement, the company is no longer subject to the $1 million compensation limit because the person is no longer an employee.

Speaking of "insurgents" - When will the US Gov't cut off dealings with Halliburton - remember the Dubai port security issue a few years ago? That was ports - this is our military. I suppose with Dick and Bush, the double standard will apply.

What of data retention laws? It's more difficult to audit their paper trails when their HQ is in Dubai than if it were in New York. Minimum wage laws for the average janitor are probably a little more exploitable.

Heck, with all of the crap which has been going on lately, it may even be a security move: in that the execs may actually feel safer in Dubai from the revenge of the people they've ruthlessly swindled in the US.

Interesting point. If their corporate e-mail goes through their headquarters, and their headquarters is in Dubai, then I would love to know what data retention standards they need to follow. It's a lot easier to commit fraud if you can burn the trail as you go, that's what Sarbanes Oxley is trying to stop in this country.

I'm sorry, but the planet you're from, what is it called? The US labor unions have been almost eviscerated in the last 20 years this link your tax dollars paid for. [bls.gov] Actually, it's more likely the janitor cleaning an office building is not unionized in the US. Dubai [gulfnews.com] has no real unions. Most unions outside of Western Europe and the US are actually powerless. In many countries even things like health and safety regulations are a weakly enforced or even non-existant.

Does anybody know whether Vice President Cheney has purchased a home in Dubai yet? Between this and the Dubai Ports World deal, the GWB administration seems to be trying to set up a cushy job there for someone.

Do we care where Cheney retires?As for Dubai buying up all sort of stuff. Dubai is swimming in cash from oil revenue. They knonw that the oil won't last forever. Massive investment in recreation facilities (as a tourism destination) and diversification in major international corporations with good cash flow is just plain smart business.

I'll be lifting a glass of celebratory champagne when George the worst and his pack of Nixon era cronies leave office, but even I don't think there's really all that much to

It matters because the improbably cluster of "Dubai", "Halliburton", and "Cheney" in this situation suggests that there's more going on here than just business. This isn't Joe al-Blow in Dubai with too much money buying a U.S. business (which would be "just business"). This is a U.S. business partially owned (and directed through a proxy) by the Vice President, buying property and setting up shop in a foreign country where the White House has been involved in deal-making. We know this move ain't for the

I've got bad news for you. The folks running Washington don't have your (or my) best interests in mind when they make business decisions. For the record, that would include all 535 suits at the opposite end of the mall from the oval office.

Thing is, there is essentially nothing you can do to stop them - you* voted them in. Twice. All you can do is vote them our next time - preferrably by a wide enough margin that there is no question as to who won.

*The you I am referring to is the collective, American you, not you-singular. You may have voted for someone else, but clearly you didn't convince enough people to vote with you (maybe you should have a few more pen pals in battleground states?). I'm guilty, too. I didn't vote for him (else I'd be complaining about tomato and vinegar subsidies, I suppose), but I also didn't convince enough of my Virginia bretheren to vote against him. I will take credit for voting out Allen, though. And for keeping Boucher in office. Might as well take some credit as well as the blame. If it makes you feel better, my other half - who did vote for him - has finally come to her senses and realized that she made a horrible mistake. And if those nuts in Iowa don't all get drunk and vote for Hillary, she just might correct that mistake next time.

NPR says [npr.org] they aren't moving their headquarters, just opening up another one. This of course calls into question the definition of "headquarters," but there seems to be conflicting information. The linked article's alarmism is from yesterday, for what it's worth.

There seems to be an awful lot of confusion over the move of the CEO to Dubai and Halliburton uprooting from the U.S. The NPR audio from the above-linked article describes how U.S. laws changed in 2004 placing additional conditions on a corporation changing its U.S. tax obligations, conditions Halliburton is not likely to be meeting any time soon.

Forgetting for a moment who they are, do you blame them? I mean, what makes anyone think that Halliburton's public image (currently considered to be somewhere between "locus of evil" and "The Fourth Reich" according to some) is going to suffer any further than it already has by moving offshore?

Now, I'm going to take a chance on this that the information on NPR today was accurate, namely:

A second local "headquarters" will be set up in Dubai, and the CEO will reside there.The current "headquarters" will remain in Houston, TX.The Dubai office is to get closer to the action and get some PR separation from us dirty Americans

The corporation will still be registered, and taxable, in the US. Changes to the laws make offshoring more difficult, including needing to have 10% of the Halliburton workforce located in Dubai in order to swith their corporate tax liabilities out of the US. Given the size of Halliburton, that's likely not going to happen.

Finally, the major support contracts for the US military are held by a subsidiary of Halliburton which will be spun off as an independent US corporation next month.

Now, one final disclaimer: this is all from memory based on a short bit on te radio. Feel free to fill in the blanks and correct the errors (be they in my memory or by the reporting staff at NPR).

When I read this I thought to myself "boy that's a good one", thinking that perhaps it was linked off to theonion or some other site, but abcnews is more or less reliable... I would however like to read the full quote, anyone?

what's more sensible than an *oil company* relocating to the *middle east*? Dubai isn't just some random village in the middle of nowhere, it's a major economic hub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai [wikipedia.org]

A lot of people have mentioned the Halliburton contracts in iraq, but Halliburton is spinning off it's military division anyway and is likely to be distanced from iraq. Aside from that, I don't think anyone at Halliburton takes the notion seriously that they will be sued when an ex-CEO is practically running the country... if they were ever afraid of that the abuses wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Also, a bunch of people have mentioned criminal charges. A lot of the problems with Halliburton, Halliburton can't really be held responsible, since the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them. If you're contract has holes in it, you're pretty fucked when it comes to trial.

Maybe we should consider rethinking their contracts as we did the Dubai port management deals. Companies that are based outside the US are clearly not as favorable in terms of our security - at least in the eyes of congress.

Listen, I'm not a fan of Halliburton screwing over the American taxpayers. I'm also against their huge no-bid contracts.

But as Slate's "Explainer," well, explains, Halliburton "is still incorporated in Delaware and remains subject to U.S. law and taxes." The article goes on to say that Halliburton would have a hell of a time incorporating in Dubai, but moving its workforce overseas is not out of the question.

After all, 55% of the company's business comes from the Eastern hemisphere. This move makes perfect sense, given their long-term business plans.

PS: The company's defense component, KBR, is set to become its own company. Halliburton's new HQ should not affect KBR.

They want the HQ to be closer to the majority of the fields they operate and to the bulk of their customers, which is Asia. Their main business is "oil services", mind you. And the biggest oil fields are around the Gulf...

Maybe I just hang out too much with the anti-war crowd but the only explanation that really makes sense to me for why Bush decided to invade Iraq is that Bush had friends in the oil industry that wanted access to Iraq's oil.

Every other explanation for why Bush decided to invaded is inconsistent with other considerations.

The whole WMD thing never really made much sense. If Iraq actually had the capability to use WMD against the USA (e.g. destroy Manhattan) then it would have been colossally stupid to invade. The way WMD could have justified invasion was if Iraq didn't have WMD but was about to have WMD in a matter of months. The thing is, if the USA did have that level of detailed intelligence then the USA should have made the specific demand that Iraq stop that specific program.

If the Bush administration actually believed the whole "ideological war against radical Islam" thing - that corrupt dictatorships are the root of radical Islam that radical Islam is the root of terrorism against the USA, then the USA should have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship closely tied to an extreme form of radical Islam. Saudi Arabia is where the 9/11 hijackers were from. Saudi Arabia is where Bin Laden was from.

If the goal was to get Bin Laden or to "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" then why didn't the Bush administration focus on the existing war in Afghanistan? For that matter, if the goal was only to choose a battle ground that resulted in few civilian casualties then why not choose Antarctica?

If the Bush administration was so opposed to Saddam's record of human rights violations that they thought it justified a costly and uncertain war, then why is the Bush administration itself holding people without trial and torturing them? Along those lines, if it was just about a particular country having a bad government and needing intervention then why didn't the Bush administration invade Somalia? Or, if it's about genocide then why hasn't the USA invaded Sudan?

At some level, I think that it would be good for Iraq to have democracy but didn't the Bush administration realize that a democratic Iraq would be dominated by the Shia who are close allies of Iran? Did the Bush administration really think it was a good idea set up a regime in Iraq that was friendly to Iran at a time when Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons?

It is pretty clear that at some point the world will run out of oil. If the Bush administration really cared about oil depletion it would seem to be much more effective to spend money on alternative energy research. The hundreds of billions spent on the Iraq war would have bought a lot of energy research. Even if the USA did manage to be the country that consumed the last of the oil, the oil is going to run out even for the USA and then there will be a need for alternative energy sources.

Obviously, the Bush administration has given a lot of justifications for invading Iraq. None of the justifications make sense when I actually think about them in detail. Some people claim that Bush is just really stupid but I have a hard time believing that that's the case. After all, Bush was smart enough to get himself elected to USA president twice.

In the end, I have to conclude that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was really about Bush helping out his friends in the oil industry. What puzzles me is that so many people just accept Bush's other justifications - even congress. Do members of congress know Bush is lying but they don't think it's politically expedient to call Bush on it. What about the news media? Do they know Bush is lying but they figure it makes a better story to pretend he's not? What about the general public? Don't they recognize the inconsistencies?

And don't even get me started on the general public's support for massive deficit spending...

The whole WMD thing never really made much sense. If Iraq actually had the capability to use WMD against the USA (e.g. destroy Manhattan) then it would have been colossally stupid to invade. The way WMD could have justified invasion was if Iraq didn't have WMD but was about to have WMD in a matter of months. The thing is, if the USA did have that level of detailed intelligence then the USA should have made the specific demand that Iraq stop that specific program.

The US government should offer the advice that this move is not a good idea. If they leave any and all remaining assets (and any profits) will be taxed 500% for 10 years and ALL contracts will be canceled as they will become a foreign corporation and cannot have contracts that may/do have implications for national security.

To make things fair, these and more rules should be applied to any US company that leaves.

On another note, what does this topic have to do with the usual technology issues on Slashdot?

Congress could cancel the contracts but they cannot single out a person/company and unfairly punish them (by extreme taxation in your case). Doing so would create a bill of attainder which is Unconstitutional as per Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Why is it greed for a company to move its headquarters to a place that will take less money from them in taxes? If the company can still do everything it needs to do for its shareholders in the new location, it would irresponsible for it NOT to make the move. The company's purpose is to maximize value for its shareholders, not passively sit around and hope to send more money to the U.S. government.

I know that a lot of people have accused Halliburton of wrongdoing on other issues, but this issue is completely unrelated to those charges. The previous charges seem to be a bit vague at times, and I don't have any opinion about them one way or the other, because I don't know the facts. But on the issue of saving money on taxes by moving an office, the company is completely justified in making the move. I would recommend any company do the same thing under similar circumstances.

I hope your reply is supposed to be satire, but that is completely irrational. By your logic, a company should focus on making as little money for its shareholders as possible. If you TRULY think that it's greed for a company to make as much money as it can, I assume you also turn down salary increases if they're offered to you. Surely it would be greed to make as much money as YOU can. Right?

>> You haven't even pretended to answer the real question, which is WHY it would be greed for Haliburton to move its headquarters.

After receiving more than generous treatment by the American government in obtaining contracts for its subsidiaries, Halliburton decides it can evade taxes (and possibly pesky laws that prohibit it form directly dealing with Iran) by moving to the UAE. Okay, they take billions of dollars in profits from favorable government treatment (possibly even criminally favorable) and then go so far as to move overseas to keep the government's "dirty hands" off their money. They've taken all they can take from America - so now they're throwing their lot in with the UAE. Let me break out the crayon so you can keep up.

You may, in fact, be sufficiently deluded, or like most people simply filter out information you don't buy, but their behavior is greedy! If you can't see that's greedy then I can't help you. People have an internal moral compass and generally they know when they're doing the wrong thing. I've been either independant or owned my own business for half my working career. I've always known when something wasn't right. I may have made a buck or two less by doing the right thing as opposed to the most porfitable thing, but it was the right thing to do and I know I'm a better person for it.

If we take your train of stupidity to its natural conclusion, we come to the notion that lying, cheating, and stealing are good because they're great ways to make money. Why return the money in a wallet you find when you can keep it? Why not steal information from competitors, so you can underbid them? Unless you understand what greed is, you have an underdeveloped sense of morallity. Unfortunately, too many people in this country take the view that morality is second to making money. So, like you, they collective moral conscience is underdeveloped.

Isn't it fascinating that the vast majority of rightwing bullshit talking points are coming from "Anonymous Cowards"? Maybe we should re-assign that to be "fascist thugs" after Mussolini's little unofficial minions, eh?
Halliburton is positioning itself for the incoming civil and criminal actions... they are spinning off all defense "support" contracts into a separate company (collecting all potential loss items into one bag) after already taking the profits. Two headquarters is, as a previous poster stated, inherently absurd unless you're expecting HQ#1 to be zerg'd. The US will be damned lucky if it gets a fraction of the completely missing billions of dollars back after all this is done.
What we have here are a few corporations (or actually a very small group of people of whom the Bushes and Cheneys are part) who have manipulated themselves into power, looted the US budget/treasury, damaged the governments ability to conduct oversight, and are now scampering out the door. Worse, they have fooled enough of the social and fiscal conservatives into following them for long enough to pull this scam. At this point, anyone supporting these hooligans are either embarrassed and defensive, have a financial stake in it,... or roadway gravel stupid.
(signed, former republican -- these people make Nixon look saintly)

Funny you should bring this up. The UAE is in the process of building a multi-multi-billion dollar office, retail, entertainment development right on the water's edge. Only problem is it's not much higher than sea-level. From what I understand the sea levels don't have to rise much before they'll need hip-waders to walk into the buildings.